I have decided to become the follower of all the atheists

[Loki]

Shit that's a lot of straw, you making matresses?

[Coito ergo sum]

What do you think are the main points of the "philosophy of atheism?"

The best way -- IMO -- of answering that question may be to address its (extant, known) history.

Actually, the best way to answer it would be to state the main points of the alleged philosophy of atheism. But, you are free to answer any question as obliquely as you like. Wait...are you the same person as Kevin?

I think it only honest to let readers view the data on all pioneering atheists for themselves. I want to stress that not all pioneering atheists are amoral. Far from it.

It's insulting to begin with some weird disclaimer about "not all" atheists being "amoral." There never has been any basis to claim that even most or a large portion atheists are "amoral." That's just a scurrilous theistic jab which equates "morality" with the existence of god because they incorrectly think that there can be no moral philosophy without a god. However, Theravada Buddism and Taoism alone prove them wrong. No gods, plenty of morals. Atheists can subscribe to deontological philosophy or consequentialism, or utilitarianism, or even virtue ethics. I think the disclaimer should more properly be made - "I want to stress that MOST atheists, including but not limited to pioneering atheists, are at least as moral as the general population."

What they lack, though, is an originality in both social altruism and in a take on the supernatural combined. They're either genuinely original (for their culture) in a culturally non-dependent altruistic social ethic, while adopting the known atheism of some mentor clearly familiar to them and their reading public. Or they are genuinely original (for their culture) in articulating a culturally non-dependent atheist take on the nature of things, while sincerely adopting someone else's already well-known altruist ethic. Or they are genuinely original (for their culture) in articulating a culturally non-dependent atheist take on the nature of things, while not engaging in any kind of thoughts on a social ethic at all. Or they are genuinely original (for their culture) in articulating both a culturally non-dependent atheist take on the nature of things and a culturally non-dependent self-made social ethic, which is always a self-centered social ethic rather than an altruistic one. They never combine a pioneering atheism with a pioneering altruism.

So what? One, what "pioneering atheists" do in terms of morality does not define a morality inherent in atheism. They may pursue altruism, or they may not. Some philosophies, like Objectivism, view "altruism" as a wrong-headed way to go anyway, and one need not be an altruist in order to be moral. Objectivists, like Ayn Rand, wrote about the "Virtue of Selfishness," etc. Moreover, altruism, on the other hand, is espoused by billions of atheists - Buddhism (particularly Theravada Buddhism), Jainism, are examples where altruism is valued quite highly. Most Objectivists are atheists, and most Buddhists/Jainists are atheists, and they have radically different philosophies.

I'm not going to repost your dissertation on historical atheists. I thought you'd summarize, however, how recounting some historical atheists imputes a "philosophy" to atheism. The atheists you listed do not share a philosophy - far from it. They espoused radically different philosophies, and those philosophies can also be adhered to by someone with a god or gods.

Lucretius - the great Roman atheist philosopher wrote the Epicurean work "On the Nature of Things." Lucretius wrote, in great Epicurean style and following on Epicurus' and Democritus' works that the material universe was formed not by a Supreme Being, but by the mixing of elemental particles which had existed from all eter­nity governed by certain simple laws. Epicurus taught that the soul is also made of material objects, and so when the body dies the soul dies with it. There is no afterlife.

So - I ask again - what are the basic principles of the alleged philosophy of atheism?

[Stein]

What do you think are the main points of the "philosophy of atheism?"

The best way -- IMO -- of answering that question may be to address its (extant, known) history.

Actually, the best way to answer it would be to state the main points of the alleged philosophy of atheism. But, you are free to answer any question as obliquely as you like. Wait...are you the same person as Kevin?

I think it only honest to let readers view the data on all pioneering atheists for themselves. I want to stress that not all pioneering atheists are amoral. Far from it.

It's insulting to begin with some weird disclaimer about "not all" atheists being "amoral."

You're right. This comes out as insulting and isn't meant to be. By now, I'm very gun-shy of ultra-orthodox/traditional theists who have routinely popped up and said to me, after perusing these atheist pioneers, [paraphrase] "Ah-ha, you see now how all atheists are amoral". Consequently, I feel like saying first thing out of the box that the notion that "all atheists" are amoral is bogus and nothing to do with what I'm surveying. I want to spike the guns of any ultra-orthodox/traditional theists lying in wait. This is my (clumsy) way of doing that. I will have to figure out some other way of stressing that up front instead. Right now, what I wrote can be construed as insulting, which means I'll have to figure out some other way of spiking the guns of any ultra-orthodox/traditional theists.

Fact: I'm NOT dealing with "all atheists". I'm dealing with the [known, extant] pioneering atheists who first articulated their stance on paper (or papyrus) within their given culture. That has no bearing on "rank-and-file atheists" like most in my own family today, or like most of the posters here, or like atheists around the world today, or like the various philosophical atheists who have emerged during the Enlightenment and since.

There never has been any basis to claim that even most or a large portion atheists are "amoral." That's just a scurrilous theistic jab which equates "morality" with the existence of god because they incorrectly think that there can be no moral philosophy without a god. However, Theravada Buddism and Taoism alone prove them wrong.

I wish this was correct. I've been burned on this one more than once. Fact is, it's an urban myth that Theravada Buddhism (the original Buddhism of the Pali texts) and Taoism are atheist. There is direct and devotional reference made to a supreme supernatural entity in the Taoist Tao-te-king text, and the earliest Pali texts (and 1/2 the sermons in the Digha-Nikaya collection are generally judged the very earliest of all) show Buddha very plainly as a believer in Brahma.

Now, what Buddha and Taoism do not subscribe to is a "Creator God" of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic variety. God is instead an entity who is the most powerful of all in the universe but not anterior to it. So to those for whom theism starts and ends with Christianity and Deitic Creation, Buddhism and Taoism are often dismissed as atheist. To a true atheist, OTOH, any notion that a belief in a god who is not an actual Creator can therefore be synonymous with non-belief(!) is an absurdity.

No gods, plenty of morals. Atheists can subscribe to deontological philosophy or consequentialism, or utilitarianism, or even virtue ethics. I think the disclaimer should more properly be made - "I want to stress that MOST atheists, including but not limited to pioneering atheists, are at least as moral as the general population."

I want it more value-neutral than that: "I want to stress that ALL atheists as a group have the same mix of good and bad that ALL theists as a group have, as well as the general population. What I'm surveying here instead are those (known, extant) pioneers who first introduce the first push-back against the prevailing brand of theism of their own time/culture." From there, I would go on to say, "What these pioneers lack, though,

is an originality in both social altruism and in a take on the supernatural combined. They're either genuinely original (for their culture) in a culturally non-dependent altruistic social ethic, while adopting the known atheism of some mentor clearly familiar to them and their reading public. Or they are genuinely original (for their culture) in articulating a culturally non-dependent atheist take on the nature of things, while sincerely adopting someone else's already well-known altruist ethic. Or they are genuinely original (for their culture) in articulating a culturally non-dependent atheist take on the nature of things, while not engaging in any kind of thoughts on a social ethic at all. Or they are genuinely original (for their culture) in articulating both a culturally non-dependent atheist take on the nature of things and a culturally non-dependent self-made social ethic, which is always a self-centered social ethic rather than an altruistic one. They never combine a pioneering atheism with a pioneering altruism.

So what? One, what "pioneering atheists" do in terms of morality does not define a morality inherent in atheism. They may pursue altruism, or they may not. Some philosophies, like Objectivism, view "altruism" as a wrong-headed way to go anyway, and one need not be an altruist in order to be moral. Objectivists, like Ayn Rand, wrote about the "Virtue of Selfishness," etc. Moreover, altruism, on the other hand, is espoused by billions of atheists - Buddhism (particularly Theravada Buddhism), Jainism, are examples where altruism is valued quite highly. Most Objectivists are atheists, and most Buddhists/Jainists are atheists, and they have radically different philosophies.

Unfortunately, Jainism, too, proved a red herring for me. Jainism does not believe in any single god anterior to the universe, true. But it does believe in the deification of certain large souls after they die. Jainism is thus polytheist and believes that the gods as a group are beings who have transcended mortality and are now divine and immortal thanks to their supreme ethical qualities while on earth.

I'm not going to repost your dissertation on historical atheists. I thought you'd summarize, however, how recounting some historical atheists imputes a "philosophy" to atheism. The atheists you listed do not share a philosophy - far from it. They espoused radically different philosophies, and those philosophies can also be adhered to by someone with a god or gods.

What is frustrating, though, is that on those rare occasions when both a pioneering atheism and a pioneering ethic are introduced at the same time (Brhaspati is the earliest example but there are others), the pioneering ethic is always self-centered. This is how come I've encountered theists who have pounced all over this information on previous occasions. Now, if I were to answer which social ethic has been most closely and frequently -- but not exclusively -- tied to pioneering atheists, it would be "self-centered-ism", so to speak. Now you and I know that is NOT the full record when it comes to recent humanitarians like Ingersoll and Russell. So I think it important that I submit the full paper trail instead, the way I do here, so that readers can see, instead, the way the variety of ethical viewpoints have played out among the pioneers.

Lucretius - the great Roman atheist philosopher wrote the Epicurean work "On the Nature of Things." Lucretius wrote, in great Epicurean style and following on Epicurus' and Democritus' works that the material universe was formed not by a Supreme Being, but by the mixing of elemental particles which had existed from all eter­nity governed by certain simple laws. Epicurus taught that the soul is also made of material objects, and so when the body dies the soul dies with it. There is no afterlife.

And this is another red herring -- although, again, you're not alone, since I barked up precisely this wrong tree myself. In fact, Lucretius does believe in gods, as a polytheist. But he stresses that the gods take no interest or part in the human comedy. That does not make Lucretius an atheist (and in fact, Epicurus appears to have viewed the gods the same way as Lucretius did, leaving Democritus's stance the only one here that seems close to atheism).

So - I ask again - what are the basic principles of the alleged philosophy of atheism?

Insofar as any pioneering philosophy can be tied to pioneering atheism at all, the self-centered social ethic of Brhaspati seems to reflect the most intrinsic "philosophy of atheism" we can found. However, that is simplistic and a not very constructive answer to a difficult question. Hence, the importance of showing the complete history by way of proper perspective.

In only one respect, it might be construed as fair to present, front and center, Brhaspati's pioneering thinking as "bedrock atheism": Neither atheism nor a self-centered social ethic appear in the _written_ record of homo sapiens until we get to Brhaspati. He is the earliest we have for both. Does that mean that we know for sure that both "philosophies" first appeared at the same time and together? No, we don't know that. We only know that they first appear, and appear together, in the _extant_ _written_ record. Hence, the necessity of presenting instead the full history of ALL the pioneers who first pushed back against theism within their own cultures, not just the first one.

Stein

[Coito ergo sum]

You're right. This comes out as insulting and isn't meant to be. By now, I'm very gun-shy of ultra-orthodox/traditional theists who have routinely popped up and said to me, after perusing these atheist pioneers, [paraphrase] "Ah-ha, you see now how all atheists are amoral". Consequently, I feel like saying first thing out of the box that the notion that "all atheists" are amoral is bogus and nothing to do with what I'm surveying. I want to spike the guns of any ultra-orthodox/traditional theists lying in wait. This is my (clumsy) way of doing that. I will have to figure out some other way of stressing that up front instead. Right now, what I wrote can be construed as insulting, which means I'll have to figure out some other way of spiking the guns of any ultra-orthodox/traditional theists.

Well, claiming that atheism is a philosophy ought to be a tacit admission that atheists are not amoral. People that follow philosophies aren't amoral. But, the reality is that some atheists are amoral just as some theists are amoral. There is no reason to think that atheists are more amoral than the general public, unless one equates a belief in gods with morality.

Fact: I'm NOT dealing with "all atheists". I'm dealing with the [known, extant] pioneering atheists who first articulated their stance on paper (or papyrus) within their given culture. That has no bearing on "rank-and-file atheists" like most of my family today, or like most of the posters here or atheists around the world today, or like the various philosophical atheists who have emerged during the Enlightenment and since.

Nor does the fact that John Doe was an atheist and followed philosophy X imply that atheism requires philosophy X. Atheism itself is not a philosophy. Many atheists are atheists and also have a philosophy (e.g. Buddhism, Objectivism, whatever).

There never has been any basis to claim that even most or a large portion atheists are "amoral." That's just a scurrilous theistic jab which equates "morality" with the existence of god because they incorrectly think that there can be no moral philosophy without a god. However, Theravada Buddism and Taoism alone prove them wrong.

I wish this was correct. I've been burned on this one more than once. Fact is, it's an urban myth that Theravada Buddhism (the original Buddhism of the Pali texts) and Taoism are atheist. There is direct and devotional reference made to a supreme supernatural entity in the Taoist Tao-te-king text, and the earliest Pali texts (and 1/2 the sermons in the Digha-Nikaya collection are generally judged the very earliest of all) show Buddha very plainly as a believer in Brahma.

The orthodox interpretation of Theravada Buddhism is that it is atheistic.

Now, what Buddha and Taoism do not subscribe to is a "Creator God" of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic variety. God is instead an entity who is the most powerful of all in the universe but not anterior to it. So to those for whom theism starts and ends with Christianity and Deitic Creation, Buddhism and Taoism are often dismissed as atheist. To a true atheist, OTOH, any notion that a belief in a god who is not an actual Creator can therefore be synonymous with non-belief(!) is an absurdity.

Whatever - the point is that plenty of folks don't believe in gods and are therefore atheists, but nevertheless follow moral belief systems. I hold to the notion that Theravada Buddhism is atheistic because I personally know practitioners who have agreed with me, and I have read material about Buddhism that has confirmed it. Nevertheless, some Hindus are atheistic and some Jains are atheistic. We only need one example.

No gods, plenty of morals. Atheists can subscribe to deontological philosophy or consequentialism, or utilitarianism, or even virtue ethics. I think the disclaimer should more properly be made - "I want to stress that MOST atheists, including but not limited to pioneering atheists, are at least as moral as the general population."

I want it more value-neutral than that: "I want to stress that ALL atheists as a group have the same mix of good and bad that ALL theists as a group have, as well as the general population. What I'm surveying here instead are those (known, extant) pioneers who first introduce the first push-back against the prevailing brand of theism of their own time/culture." From there, I would go on to say, "What these pioneers lack, though,

is an originality in both social altruism and in a take on the supernatural combined. They're either genuinely original (for their culture) in a culturally non-dependent altruistic social ethic, while adopting the known atheism of some mentor clearly familiar to them and their reading public. Or they are genuinely original (for their culture) in articulating a culturally non-dependent atheist take on the nature of things, while sincerely adopting someone else's already well-known altruist ethic. Or they are genuinely original (for their culture) in articulating a culturally non-dependent atheist take on the nature of things, while not engaging in any kind of thoughts on a social ethic at all. Or they are genuinely original (for their culture) in articulating both a culturally non-dependent atheist take on the nature of things and a culturally non-dependent self-made social ethic, which is always a self-centered social ethic rather than an altruistic one. They never combine a pioneering atheism with a pioneering altruism.

So what? One, what "pioneering atheists" do in terms of morality does not define a morality inherent in atheism. They may pursue altruism, or they may not. Some philosophies, like Objectivism, view "altruism" as a wrong-headed way to go anyway, and one need not be an altruist in order to be moral. Objectivists, like Ayn Rand, wrote about the "Virtue of Selfishness," etc. Moreover, altruism, on the other hand, is espoused by billions of atheists - Buddhism (particularly Theravada Buddhism), Jainism, are examples where altruism is valued quite highly. Most Objectivists are atheists, and most Buddhists/Jainists are atheists, and they have radically different philosophies.

Unfortunately, Jainism, too, proved a red herring for me. Jainism does not believe in any single god anterior to the universe, true. But it does believe in the deification of certain large souls after they die. Jainism is thus polytheist and believes that the gods as a group are beings who have transcended mortality and are now divine and immortal thanks to their supreme ethical qualities while on earth.

Jains do not believe in a God or gods in the way that many other religions do, but they do believe in divine (or at least perfect) beings who are worthy of devotion.Jains do not believe that the universe was created by God or by any other creative spirit. Jain writings are scornful of the very idea. The stuff in Jainism that people try to pigeonhole into the idea of "god" is not that.

I'm not going to repost your dissertation on historical atheists. I thought you'd summarize, however, how recounting some historical atheists imputes a "philosophy" to atheism. The atheists you listed do not share a philosophy - far from it. They espoused radically different philosophies, and those philosophies can also be adhered to by someone with a god or gods.

What is frustrating, though, is that on those rare occasions when both a pioneering atheism and a pioneering ethic are introduced at the same time (Brhaspati is the earliest example but there are others), the pioneering ethic is always self-centered.

I don't agree with that, but it's irrelevant. Even if all "pioneering atheists" believed in self-centered philosophies that does not mean atheism IS a self-centered philosophy.

This is how come I've encountered theists who have pounced all over this information on previous occasions. Now, if I were to answer which social ethic has been most closely and frequently -- but not exclusively -- tied to pioneering atheists, it would be "self-centered-ism", so to speak.

Says you. It's not required to be an atheist. The most altruistic person in the world can be an atheist, as long as he does not believe in gods. There is no problem here. Look - if an atheist happens to be completely altruistic, he doesn't cease being an atheist because he is altruistic. Moreover, if a theist is not altruistic, he does not become an atheist by being self-centered.

This really isn't that complicated - atheism is ONLY the lack of belief in gods, or the belief that there is insufficient evidence from which to conclude there are any gods, or words to that effect. There are no other requirements. None. Zip. Zero. Nothing. The only reason a theist tries to attribute a "philosophy" to atheism is because they want to argue that there must be a god because the straw man philosophy they try to force on atheism is unpalatable. However, it is just that - a straw man, because atheism does not require or necessarily lead to any particular philosophy or moral position.

Now you and I know that is NOT the full record when it comes to recent humanitarians like Ingersoll and Russell. So I think it important that I submit the full paper trail instead, the way I do here, so that readers can see, instead, the way the variety of ethical viewpoints have played out among the pioneers.

The only important thing is that if someone is asserting that atheism IS a philosophy, they ought to state explicitly what the principles of atheistic philosophy is. It doesn't matter what any individual, even Col. Ingersoll or Bertrand Russell, believed philosophically, just as it doesn't matter what Marx, Engels and Ayn Rand believed.

Lucretius - the great Roman atheist philosopher wrote the Epicurean work "On the Nature of Things." Lucretius wrote, in great Epicurean style and following on Epicurus' and Democritus' works that the material universe was formed not by a Supreme Being, but by the mixing of elemental particles which had existed from all eter­nity governed by certain simple laws. Epicurus taught that the soul is also made of material objects, and so when the body dies the soul dies with it. There is no afterlife.

And this is another red herring -- although, again, you're not alone, since I barked up precisely this wrong tree myself. In fact, Lucretius does believe in gods, as a polytheist. But he stresses that the gods take no interest or part in the human comedy. That does not make Lucretius an atheist (and in fact, Epicurus appears to have viewed the gods the same way as Lucretius did, leaving Democritus's stance the only one here that seems close to atheism).

He did not believe in a creator god or a soul that survived the body or an afterlife. Epicurus preceded Lucretius.

It's not a red herring, because of the point we're arguing. Is atheism a philosophy. It isn't, and it doesn't matter what any individual atheist, theist, deist, polytheist, heathen, or anyone else believed in addition thereto. I mean, it's like saying "theism is a philosophy." Turn it around and look at that - theism is NOT a philosophy. Theism is any belief in a god or gods. Yet, people can be humanists, utilitarians, Epicureans, or whatever philosophy in addition to their theism. It doesn't matter what individuals are theists, what Thomas Aquinas believed philosophically or what the Oracle at Delphi believed philosophically. Theists believe in gods, and they have whatever philosophy they have. Atheists don't believe in gods, and they also have whatever philosophy they have.

The red herring here is any discussion of "pioneering" atheists or theists. It just doesn't matter what any pioneer believed philosophically, because their philosophies are not requirements of their MERE atheism or theism.

So - I ask again - what are the basic principles of the alleged philosophy of atheism?

Insofar as any pioneering philosophy can be tied to pioneering atheism at all, the self-centered social ethic of Brhaspati seems to reflect the most intrinsic "philosophy of atheism" we can found.

And, of course, the long and short of that is that the self-centered social ethic of Brhaspati is, plainly and simply stated, NOT part and parcel of atheism, not required of atheism, and other than coincidentally being held by Brhaspati has nothing at all to do with atheism. An atheist may hold exactly the opposite philosophical view as Brhaspati and still be an atheist.

However, that is simplistic and a not very constructive answer to a difficult question. Hence, the importance of showing the complete history by way of proper perspective.

It's not a difficult question. The answer is that there is not any philosophy that is pat of atheism because there is nothing at all in the universe that makes someone an atheist other than a lack of belief in gods, and there is no philosophy that can be adhered to that will make someone who believes in gods into an atheist. If a person believes in gods, they are a theist, or arguably a deist. If they don't believe in gods, they are an atheist. Philosophy is different.

In only one respect, it might be construed as fair to present, front and center, Brhaspati's pioneering thinking as "bedrock atheism": Neither atheism nor a self-centered social ethic appear in the _written_ record of homo sapiens until we get to Brhaspati. He is the earliest we have for both. Does that mean that we know for sure that both "philosophies" first appeared at the same time and together? No, we don't know that. We only know that they first appear, and appear together, in the _extant_ _written_ record. Hence, the necessity of presenting instead the full history of ALL the pioneers who first pushed back against theism within their own cultures, not just the first one.

Stein

It doesn't matter whether they appeared together. And the pioneers' beliefs are irrelevant. Many folks believed many things, philosophically. If they didn't believe in gods, they were atheists. If they did believe in gods, they weren't atheists. It really is that simple.

I am an atheist - can you guess my philosophy? Of course not. I might be a Marxist. I might be a Trotskyist. I might be an Enlightenment Liberal or a utilitarian. I might be an existentialist or a nihilist. Atheism is not a philosophy.

[Stein]

OOPS! This is still being edited -- I pressed the Submit button instead of the Preview button!

You're right. This comes out as insulting and isn't meant to be. By now, I'm very gun-shy of ultra-orthodox/traditional theists who have routinely popped up and said to me, after perusing these atheist pioneers, [paraphrase] "Ah-ha, you see now how all atheists are amoral". Consequently, I feel like saying first thing out of the box that the notion that "all atheists" are amoral is bogus and nothing to do with what I'm surveying. I want to spike the guns of any ultra-orthodox/traditional theists lying in wait. This is my (clumsy) way of doing that. I will have to figure out some other way of stressing that up front instead. Right now, what I wrote can be construed as insulting, which means I'll have to figure out some other way of spiking the guns of any ultra-orthodox/traditional theists.

Well, claiming that atheism is a philosophy ought to be a tacit admission that atheists are not amoral. People that follow philosophies aren't amoral. But, the reality is that some atheists are amoral just as some theists are amoral. There is no reason to think that atheists are more amoral than the general public, unless one equates a belief in gods with morality.

Fact: I'm NOT dealing with "all atheists". I'm dealing with the [known, extant] pioneering atheists who first articulated their stance on paper (or papyrus) within their given culture. That has no bearing on "rank-and-file atheists" like most of my family today, or like most of the posters here or atheists around the world today, or like the various philosophical atheists who have emerged during the Enlightenment and since.

Nor does the fact that John Doe was an atheist and followed philosophy X imply that atheism requires philosophy X. Atheism itself is not a philosophy. Many atheists are atheists and also have a philosophy (e.g. Buddhism, Objectivism, whatever).

There never has been any basis to claim that even most or a large portion atheists are "amoral." That's just a scurrilous theistic jab which equates "morality" with the existence of god because they incorrectly think that there can be no moral philosophy without a god. However, Theravada Buddism and Taoism alone prove them wrong.

I wish this was correct. I've been burned on this one more than once. Fact is, it's an urban myth that Theravada Buddhism (the original Buddhism of the Pali texts) and Taoism are atheist. There is direct and devotional reference made to a supreme supernatural entity in the Taoist Tao-te-king text, and the earliest Pali texts (and 1/2 the sermons in the Digha-Nikaya collection are generally judged the very earliest of all) show Buddha very plainly as a believer in Brahma.

The orthodox interpretation of Theravada Buddhism is that it is atheistic.

Now, what Buddha and Taoism do not subscribe to is a "Creator God" of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic variety. God is instead an entity who is the most powerful of all in the universe but not anterior to it. So to those for whom theism starts and ends with Christianity and Deitic Creation, Buddhism and Taoism are often dismissed as atheist. To a true atheist, OTOH, any notion that a belief in a god who is not an actual Creator can therefore be synonymous with non-belief(!) is an absurdity.

Whatever - the point is that plenty of folks don't believe in gods and are therefore atheists, but nevertheless follow moral belief systems. I hold to the notion that Theravada Buddhism is atheistic because I personally know practitioners who have agreed with me, and I have read material about Buddhism that has confirmed it. Nevertheless, some Hindus are atheistic and some Jains are atheistic. We only need one example.

Candidly, all I can conclude then is that if these practitioners claim to be atheists, then A) they don't really know what atheism is, or B) they don't know what the earliest primary sources on Buddha's own thinking say. Perhaps, this confusion explains how come the urban myth about Buddhism and atheism has persisted, on and off for a (frustrating) while. Now, I don't gainsay the right of someone to view himself as both a Buddhist and an atheist. But the immediate purpose of this particular exchange, if not necessarily the whole thread, is to, arguably, gain some kind of toe-hold on the history of ideas. The best most rigorous history on Buddha we have clearly indicates that Buddha (or Siddhartha Gautama) was a believer in Brahma. Perhaps, we want to make some kind of distinction between Buddha and Buddhism. If so, I'd give a cookie to know the who/when/where of the circumstances for Brahma being subtracted from Buddhism. We can very safely say that that was not due to Buddha.

No gods, plenty of morals. Atheists can subscribe to deontological philosophy or consequentialism, or utilitarianism, or even virtue ethics. I think the disclaimer should more properly be made - "I want to stress that MOST atheists, including but not limited to pioneering atheists, are at least as moral as the general population."

I want it more value-neutral than that: "I want to stress that ALL atheists as a group have the same mix of good and bad that ALL theists as a group have, as well as the general population. What I'm surveying here instead are those (known, extant) pioneers who first introduce the first push-back against the prevailing brand of theism of their own time/culture." From there, I would go on to say, "What these pioneers lack, though,

is an originality in both social altruism and in a take on the supernatural combined. They're either genuinely original (for their culture) in a culturally non-dependent altruistic social ethic, while adopting the known atheism of some mentor clearly familiar to them and their reading public. Or they are genuinely original (for their culture) in articulating a culturally non-dependent atheist take on the nature of things, while sincerely adopting someone else's already well-known altruist ethic. Or they are genuinely original (for their culture) in articulating a culturally non-dependent atheist take on the nature of things, while not engaging in any kind of thoughts on a social ethic at all. Or they are genuinely original (for their culture) in articulating both a culturally non-dependent atheist take on the nature of things and a culturally non-dependent self-made social ethic, which is always a self-centered social ethic rather than an altruistic one. They never combine a pioneering atheism with a pioneering altruism.

So what? One, what "pioneering atheists" do in terms of morality does not define a morality inherent in atheism. They may pursue altruism, or they may not. Some philosophies, like Objectivism, view "altruism" as a wrong-headed way to go anyway, and one need not be an altruist in order to be moral. Objectivists, like Ayn Rand, wrote about the "Virtue of Selfishness," etc. Moreover, altruism, on the other hand, is espoused by billions of atheists - Buddhism (particularly Theravada Buddhism), Jainism, are examples where altruism is valued quite highly. Most Objectivists are atheists, and most Buddhists/Jainists are atheists, and they have radically different philosophies.

Unfortunately, Jainism, too, proved a red herring for me. Jainism does not believe in any single god anterior to the universe, true. But it does believe in the deification of certain large souls after they die. Jainism is thus polytheist and believes that the gods as a group are beings who have transcended mortality and are now divine and immortal thanks to their supreme ethical qualities while on earth.

Jains do not believe in a God or gods in the way that many other religions do, but they do believe in divine (or at least perfect) beings who are worthy of devotion.Jains do not believe that the universe was created by God or by any other creative spirit. Jain writings are scornful of the very idea. The stuff in Jainism that people try to pigeonhole into the idea of "god" is not that.

I'm not going to repost your dissertation on historical atheists. I thought you'd summarize, however, how recounting some historical atheists imputes a "philosophy" to atheism. The atheists you listed do not share a philosophy - far from it. They espoused radically different philosophies, and those philosophies can also be adhered to by someone with a god or gods.

What is frustrating, though, is that on those rare occasions when both a pioneering atheism and a pioneering ethic are introduced at the same time (Brhaspati is the earliest example but there are others), the pioneering ethic is always self-centered.

I don't agree with that, but it's irrelevant. Even if all "pioneering atheists" believed in self-centered philosophies that does not mean atheism IS a self-centered philosophy.

This is how come I've encountered theists who have pounced all over this information on previous occasions. Now, if I were to answer which social ethic has been most closely and frequently -- but not exclusively -- tied to pioneering atheists, it would be "self-centered-ism", so to speak.

Says you. It's not required to be an atheist. The most altruistic person in the world can be an atheist, as long as he does not believe in gods. There is no problem here. Look - if an atheist happens to be completely altruistic, he doesn't cease being an atheist because he is altruistic. Moreover, if a theist is not altruistic, he does not become an atheist by being self-centered.

This really isn't that complicated - atheism is ONLY the lack of belief in gods, or the belief that there is insufficient evidence from which to conclude there are any gods, or words to that effect. There are no other requirements. None. Zip. Zero. Nothing. The only reason a theist tries to attribute a "philosophy" to atheism is because they want to argue that there must be a god because the straw man philosophy they try to force on atheism is unpalatable. However, it is just that - a straw man, because atheism does not require or necessarily lead to any particular philosophy or moral position.

Now you and I know that is NOT the full record when it comes to recent humanitarians like Ingersoll and Russell. So I think it important that I submit the full paper trail instead, the way I do here, so that readers can see, instead, the way the variety of ethical viewpoints have played out among the pioneers.

The only important thing is that if someone is asserting that atheism IS a philosophy, they ought to state explicitly what the principles of atheistic philosophy is. It doesn't matter what any individual, even Col. Ingersoll or Bertrand Russell, believed philosophically, just as it doesn't matter what Marx, Engels and Ayn Rand believed.

Lucretius - the great Roman atheist philosopher wrote the Epicurean work "On the Nature of Things." Lucretius wrote, in great Epicurean style and following on Epicurus' and Democritus' works that the material universe was formed not by a Supreme Being, but by the mixing of elemental particles which had existed from all eter­nity governed by certain simple laws. Epicurus taught that the soul is also made of material objects, and so when the body dies the soul dies with it. There is no afterlife.

And this is another red herring -- although, again, you're not alone, since I barked up precisely this wrong tree myself. In fact, Lucretius does believe in gods, as a polytheist. But he stresses that the gods take no interest or part in the human comedy. That does not make Lucretius an atheist (and in fact, Epicurus appears to have viewed the gods the same way as Lucretius did, leaving Democritus's stance the only one here that seems close to atheism).

He did not believe in a creator god or a soul that survived the body or an afterlife. Epicurus preceded Lucretius.

It's not a red herring, because of the point we're arguing. Is atheism a philosophy. It isn't, and it doesn't matter what any individual atheist, theist, deist, polytheist, heathen, or anyone else believed in addition thereto. I mean, it's like saying "theism is a philosophy." Turn it around and look at that - theism is NOT a philosophy. Theism is any belief in a god or gods. Yet, people can be humanists, utilitarians, Epicureans, or whatever philosophy in addition to their theism. It doesn't matter what individuals are theists, what Thomas Aquinas believed philosophically or what the Oracle at Delphi believed philosophically. Theists believe in gods, and they have whatever philosophy they have. Atheists don't believe in gods, and they also have whatever philosophy they have.

The red herring here is any discussion of "pioneering" atheists or theists. It just doesn't matter what any pioneer believed philosophically, because their philosophies are not requirements of their MERE atheism or theism.

So - I ask again - what are the basic principles of the alleged philosophy of atheism?

Insofar as any pioneering philosophy can be tied to pioneering atheism at all, the self-centered social ethic of Brhaspati seems to reflect the most intrinsic "philosophy of atheism" we can found.

And, of course, the long and short of that is that the self-centered social ethic of Brhaspati is, plainly and simply stated, NOT part and parcel of atheism, not required of atheism, and other than coincidentally being held by Brhaspati has nothing at all to do with atheism. An atheist may hold exactly the opposite philosophical view as Brhaspati and still be an atheist.

However, that is simplistic and a not very constructive answer to a difficult question. Hence, the importance of showing the complete history by way of proper perspective.

It's not a difficult question. The answer is that there is not any philosophy that is pat of atheism because there is nothing at all in the universe that makes someone an atheist other than a lack of belief in gods, and there is no philosophy that can be adhered to that will make someone who believes in gods into an atheist. If a person believes in gods, they are a theist, or arguably a deist. If they don't believe in gods, they are an atheist. Philosophy is different.

In only one respect, it might be construed as fair to present, front and center, Brhaspati's pioneering thinking as "bedrock atheism": Neither atheism nor a self-centered social ethic appear in the _written_ record of homo sapiens until we get to Brhaspati. He is the earliest we have for both. Does that mean that we know for sure that both "philosophies" first appeared at the same time and together? No, we don't know that. We only know that they first appear, and appear together, in the _extant_ _written_ record. Hence, the necessity of presenting instead the full history of ALL the pioneers who first pushed back against theism within their own cultures, not just the first one.

Stein

It doesn't matter whether they appeared together. And the pioneers' beliefs are irrelevant. Many folks believed many things, philosophically. If they didn't believe in gods, they were atheists. If they did believe in gods, they weren't atheists. It really is that simple.

I am an atheist - can you guess my philosophy? Of course not. I might be a Marxist. I might be a Trotskyist. I might be an Enlightenment Liberal or a utilitarian. I might be an existentialist or a nihilist. Atheism is not a philosophy.

[MrFungus420]

Rand said...

Who cares?

I'd rather have to read the "begats" of the Bible than any of her boring crap again. It's a more compelling storyline and more interesting than anything that she has written.

[Stein]

CORRECTED VERSION OF PREVIOUS POST FOR COITO

You're right. This comes out as insulting and isn't meant to be. By now, I'm very gun-shy of ultra-orthodox/traditional theists who have routinely popped up and said to me, after perusing these atheist pioneers, [paraphrase] "Ah-ha, you see now how all atheists are amoral". Consequently, I feel like saying first thing out of the box that the notion that "all atheists" are amoral is bogus and nothing to do with what I'm surveying. I want to spike the guns of any ultra-orthodox/traditional theists lying in wait. This is my (clumsy) way of doing that. I will have to figure out some other way of stressing that up front instead. Right now, what I wrote can be construed as insulting, which means I'll have to figure out some other way of spiking the guns of any ultra-orthodox/traditional theists.

Well, claiming that atheism is a philosophy ought to be a tacit admission that atheists are not amoral. People that follow philosophies aren't amoral. But, the reality is that some atheists are amoral just as some theists are amoral. There is no reason to think that atheists are more amoral than the general public, unless one equates a belief in gods with morality.

Fact: I'm NOT dealing with "all atheists". I'm dealing with the [known, extant] pioneering atheists who first articulated their stance on paper (or papyrus) within their given culture. That has no bearing on "rank-and-file atheists" like most of my family today, or like most of the posters here or atheists around the world today, or like the various philosophical atheists who have emerged during the Enlightenment and since.

Nor does the fact that John Doe was an atheist and followed philosophy X imply that atheism requires philosophy X. Atheism itself is not a philosophy. Many atheists are atheists and also have a philosophy (e.g. Buddhism, Objectivism, whatever).

There never has been any basis to claim that even most or a large portion atheists are "amoral." That's just a scurrilous theistic jab which equates "morality" with the existence of god because they incorrectly think that there can be no moral philosophy without a god. However, Theravada Buddism and Taoism alone prove them wrong.

I wish this was correct. I've been burned on this one more than once. Fact is, it's an urban myth that Theravada Buddhism (the original Buddhism of the Pali texts) and Taoism are atheist. There is direct and devotional reference made to a supreme supernatural entity in the Taoist Tao-te-king text, and the earliest Pali texts (and 1/2 the sermons in the Digha-Nikaya collection are generally judged the very earliest of all) show Buddha very plainly as a believer in Brahma.

The orthodox interpretation of Theravada Buddhism is that it is atheistic.

Now, what Buddha and Taoism do not subscribe to is a "Creator God" of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic variety. God is instead an entity who is the most powerful of all in the universe but not anterior to it. So to those for whom theism starts and ends with Christianity and Deitic Creation, Buddhism and Taoism are often dismissed as atheist. To a true atheist, OTOH, any notion that a belief in a god who is not an actual Creator can therefore be synonymous with non-belief(!) is an absurdity.

Whatever - the point is that plenty of folks don't believe in gods and are therefore atheists, but nevertheless follow moral belief systems. I hold to the notion that Theravada Buddhism is atheistic because I personally know practitioners who have agreed with me, and I have read material about Buddhism that has confirmed it. Nevertheless, some Hindus are atheistic and some Jains are atheistic. We only need one example.

Candidly, all I can conclude then is that if these practitioners claim to be atheists, then A) they don't really know what atheism is, or B) they don't know what the earliest primary sources on Buddha's own thinking say. Perhaps, this confusion explains how come the urban myth about Buddhism and atheism has persisted, on and off for a (frustrating) while. Now, I don't gainsay the right of someone to view himself as both a Buddhist and an atheist. But the immediate purpose of this particular exchange, if not necessarily the whole thread, is to, arguably, gain some kind of toe-hold on the history of ideas. The best most rigorous history on Buddha we have clearly indicates that Buddha (or Siddhartha Gautama) was a believer in Brahma. Perhaps, we want to make some kind of distinction between Buddha and Buddhism. If so, I'd give a cookie to know the who/when/where of the circumstances for Brahma being subtracted from Buddhism. We can very safely say that that was not due to Buddha.

No gods, plenty of morals. Atheists can subscribe to deontological philosophy or consequentialism, or utilitarianism, or even virtue ethics. I think the disclaimer should more properly be made - "I want to stress that MOST atheists, including but not limited to pioneering atheists, are at least as moral as the general population."

I want it more value-neutral than that: "I want to stress that ALL atheists as a group have the same mix of good and bad that ALL theists as a group have, as well as the general population. What I'm surveying here instead are those (known, extant) pioneers who first introduce the first push-back against the prevailing brand of theism of their own time/culture." From there, I would go on to say, "What these pioneers lack, though,

is an originality in both social altruism and in a take on the supernatural combined. They're either genuinely original (for their culture) in a culturally non-dependent altruistic social ethic, while adopting the known atheism of some mentor clearly familiar to them and their reading public. Or they are genuinely original (for their culture) in articulating a culturally non-dependent atheist take on the nature of things, while sincerely adopting someone else's already well-known altruist ethic. Or they are genuinely original (for their culture) in articulating a culturally non-dependent atheist take on the nature of things, while not engaging in any kind of thoughts on a social ethic at all. Or they are genuinely original (for their culture) in articulating both a culturally non-dependent atheist take on the nature of things and a culturally non-dependent self-made social ethic, which is always a self-centered social ethic rather than an altruistic one. They never combine a pioneering atheism with a pioneering altruism.

So what? One, what "pioneering atheists" do in terms of morality does not define a morality inherent in atheism. They may pursue altruism, or they may not. Some philosophies, like Objectivism, view "altruism" as a wrong-headed way to go anyway, and one need not be an altruist in order to be moral. Objectivists, like Ayn Rand, wrote about the "Virtue of Selfishness," etc. Moreover, altruism, on the other hand, is espoused by billions of atheists - Buddhism (particularly Theravada Buddhism), Jainism, are examples where altruism is valued quite highly. Most Objectivists are atheists, and most Buddhists/Jainists are atheists, and they have radically different philosophies.

Unfortunately, Jainism, too, proved a red herring for me. Jainism does not believe in any single god anterior to the universe, true. But it does believe in the deification of certain large souls after they die. Jainism is thus polytheist and believes that the gods as a group are beings who have transcended mortality and are now divine and immortal thanks to their supreme ethical qualities while on earth.

Jains do not believe in a God or gods in the way that many other religions do, but they do believe in divine (or at least perfect) beings who are worthy of devotion.Jains do not believe that the universe was created by God or by any other creative spirit. Jain writings are scornful of the very idea. The stuff in Jainism that people try to pigeonhole into the idea of "god" is not that.

And yet in their believing in perfected beings who have survived mortality, they are clearly believers in the supernatural. No atheist, by definition, believes in the supernatural.

I'm not going to repost your dissertation on historical atheists. I thought you'd summarize, however, how recounting some historical atheists imputes a "philosophy" to atheism. The atheists you listed do not share a philosophy - far from it. They espoused radically different philosophies, and those philosophies can also be adhered to by someone with a god or gods.

What is frustrating, though, is that on those rare occasions when both a pioneering atheism and a pioneering ethic are introduced at the same time (Brhaspati is the earliest example but there are others), the pioneering ethic is always self-centered.

I don't agree with that, but it's irrelevant. Even if all "pioneering atheists" believed in self-centered philosophies that does not mean atheism IS a self-centered philosophy.

You're not clear here. Are you saying only that you disagree with the implication that atheism IS a self-centered philosophy? Or are you also saying -- somehow(!) -- that you disagree with the actual facts behind Brhaspati? (....which would seem to be illogical; how does one disagree with a fact?)

This is how come I've encountered theists who have pounced all over this information on previous occasions. Now, if I were to answer which social ethic has been most closely and frequently -- but not exclusively -- tied to pioneering atheists, it would be "self-centered-ism", so to speak.

Says you. It's not required to be an atheist. The most altruistic person in the world can be an atheist, as long as he does not believe in gods. There is no problem here. Look - if an atheist happens to be completely altruistic, he doesn't cease being an atheist because he is altruistic. Moreover, if a theist is not altruistic, he does not become an atheist by being self-centered.

This really isn't that complicated - atheism is ONLY the lack of belief in gods, or the belief that there is insufficient evidence from which to conclude there are any gods, or words to that effect. There are no other requirements. None. Zip. Zero. Nothing. The only reason a theist tries to attribute a "philosophy" to atheism is because they want to argue that there must be a god because the straw man philosophy they try to force on atheism is unpalatable. However, it is just that - a straw man, because atheism does not require or necessarily lead to any particular philosophy or moral position.

Now you and I know that is NOT the full record when it comes to recent humanitarians like Ingersoll and Russell. So I think it important that I submit the full paper trail instead, the way I do here, so that readers can see, instead, the way the variety of ethical viewpoints have played out among the pioneers.

The only important thing is that if someone is asserting that atheism IS a philosophy, they ought to state explicitly what the principles of atheistic philosophy is. It doesn't matter what any individual, even Col. Ingersoll or Bertrand Russell, believed philosophically, just as it doesn't matter what Marx, Engels and Ayn Rand believed.

Here I would disagree. I think it unavoidable that, once one is going to posit the notion that it's at all possible to state explicitly the principles of atheistic philosophy -- and I'm not saying this is or isn't possible; I'm just detailing one's obligations once one takes such a plunge -- one has to then apply to history to make such a statement at all rigorous. Any attempt at a statement of such a kind is meaningless if it's just an exercise at pulling something arbitrary out of one's hat. Instead, whatever/Whoever has been associated with "atheistic philosophy" in the past must be addressed first. Of course, it should be stressed that it may not be the whole picture. But it cannot be ignored, if one is going to address this honestly and conscientiously.

Lucretius - the great Roman atheist philosopher wrote the Epicurean work "On the Nature of Things." Lucretius wrote, in great Epicurean style and following on Epicurus' and Democritus' works that the material universe was formed not by a Supreme Being, but by the mixing of elemental particles which had existed from all eter­nity governed by certain simple laws. Epicurus taught that the soul is also made of material objects, and so when the body dies the soul dies with it. There is no afterlife.

And this is another red herring -- although, again, you're not alone, since I barked up precisely this wrong tree myself. In fact, Lucretius does believe in gods, as a polytheist. But he stresses that the gods take no interest or part in the human comedy. That does not make Lucretius an atheist (and in fact, Epicurus appears to have viewed the gods the same way as Lucretius did, leaving Democritus's stance the only one here that seems close to atheism).

He did not believe in a creator god or a soul that survived the body or an afterlife. Epicurus preceded Lucretius.

I'm very well aware that Epicurus preceded Luc., just as Democritus preceded Epic., who was Democ.'s pupil acc. to certain sources. The bottom line is that both Epicurus and Lucretius believed that the divine exists. Consequently, neither of them is an atheist.

It's not a red herring, because of the point we're arguing. Is atheism a philosophy. It isn't,

Maybe not. But earlier, some posters here were wondering just what a responsible answer might be to a POSSIBLE question: IF there is such a thing as atheistic philosophy, what would be its components? I think we both understand that the framework of this exchange is already hypothetical. There may not be such a thing as atheistic philosophy. But that possibility was still not disallowed here, as shown clearly by YOUR mooting (not me) the components question in the first place.

and it doesn't matter what any individual atheist, theist, deist, polytheist, heathen, or anyone else believed in addition thereto. I mean, it's like saying "theism is a philosophy." Turn it around and look at that - theism is NOT a philosophy. Theism is any belief in a god or gods. Yet, people can be humanists, utilitarians, Epicureans, or whatever philosophy in addition to their theism. It doesn't matter what individuals are theists, what Thomas Aquinas believed philosophically or what the Oracle at Delphi believed philosophically. Theists believe in gods, and they have whatever philosophy they have. Atheists don't believe in gods, and they also have whatever philosophy they have.

And now, you're just disallowing your own earlier question <shrug>. It's a matter of indifference to me if there is or isn't such a thing as atheistic philosophy. I'm simply showing you what might be a reasonably systematic and reasonable way of going about answering a hypothetical question: IF there is such a thing as atheistic philosophy, what would be its components?

The red herring here is any discussion of "pioneering" atheists or theists. It just doesn't matter what any pioneer believed philosophically, because their philosophies are not requirements of their MERE atheism or theism.

It is not a red herring once one has mooted the question, "IF there is such a thing as atheistic philosophy, what would be its components?". Now, if you want to suddenly take back that question now that it seems to lead into all sorts of illogicalities for you, some of which you may well have anticipated but not all(?), be my guest.

There are two things being discussed here: A) Is there such a thing as atheistic philosophy; B) If there is such a thing, what are its components? You started out by inviting posters to address B. I found such an exercise intriguing for its own sake. Now we seem to be exclusively addressing A instead. I'll be frank. I'm less interested in A, since I have less of an opinion on that. But that doesn't mean you aren't free to discuss A with others.

So - I ask again - what are the basic principles of the alleged philosophy of atheism?

Insofar as any pioneering philosophy can be tied to pioneering atheism at all, the self-centered social ethic of Brhaspati seems to reflect the most intrinsic "philosophy of atheism" we can found.

And, of course, the long and short of that is that the self-centered social ethic of Brhaspati is, plainly and simply stated, NOT part and parcel of atheism, not required of atheism, and other than coincidentally being held by Brhaspati has nothing at all to do with atheism. An atheist may hold exactly the opposite philosophical view as Brhaspati and still be an atheist.

This is a reasonably valid argument. But it doesn't invalidate the initial logic of looking at history first. Also, while it may not necessarily be part and parcel of atheism in one way, it is part and parcel of atheism's history.

However, that is simplistic and a not very constructive answer to a difficult question. Hence, the importance of showing the complete history by way of proper perspective.

It's not a difficult question. The answer is that there is not any philosophy that is pa[r]t of atheism

In many ways, this is true. But historically, there is this one Brhaspati-an ethic that is a part -- and, surprisingly, a recurring part -- of atheism _history_, even if not necessarily part and parcel of atheism's _essence_. We need not draw any very large conclusions from its playing a part in atheism _history_. But it's illogical to ignore it. It's still part of the record <shrug>.

because there is nothing at all in the universe that makes someone an atheist other than a lack of belief in gods, and there is no philosophy that can be adhered to that will make someone who believes in gods into an atheist. If a person believes in gods, they are a theist, or arguably a deist. If they don't believe in gods, they are an atheist. Philosophy is different.

In only one respect, it might be construed as fair to present, front and center, Brhaspati's pioneering thinking as "bedrock atheism": Neither atheism nor a self-centered social ethic appear in the _written_ record of homo sapiens until we get to Brhaspati. He is the earliest we have for both. Does that mean that we know for sure that both "philosophies" first appeared at the same time and together? No, we don't know that. We only know that they first appear, and appear together, in the _extant_ _written_ record. Hence, the necessity of presenting instead the full history of ALL the pioneers who first pushed back against theism within their own cultures, not just the first one.

Stein

It doesn't matter whether they appeared together. And the pioneers' beliefs are irrelevant. Many folks believed many things, philosophically. If they didn't believe in gods, they were atheists. If they did believe in gods, they weren't atheists. It really is that simple.

I am an atheist - can you guess my philosophy? Of course not. I might be a Marxist. I might be a Trotskyist. I might be an Enlightenment Liberal or a utilitarian. I might be an existentialist or a nihilist. Atheism is not a philosophy.

Intrinsically, it may not be a real philosophy -- we're arguing topic A again, rather than topic B (see above). But to say history doesn't matter at all is just wrong. History may not necessarily have a direct bearing on atheism's essence. But since it does have some bearing on any attempt (theoretical/hypothetical or not) to codify an "alleged atheistic philosophy", as you put it, it does still matter in this codifying context, to a degree. It is therefore not irrelevant, until one disallows topic B altogether and concentrates only on topic A. You didn't do that at first. But now you are.

Stein

[Coito ergo sum]

Rand said...

Who cares?

I'd rather have to read the "begats" of the Bible than any of her boring crap again. It's a more compelling storyline and more interesting than anything that she has written.

The point wasn't what she wrote...it was that she was an atheist and advanced philosophy X, while other atheists advance philosophies Y and Z and A and B and C.

[Coito ergo sum]

And yet in their believing in perfected beings who have survived mortality, they are clearly believers in the supernatural. No atheist, by definition, believes in the supernatural.

Incorrect. Atheism means - not believing in gods. If an atheist believes in supernatural things like fairies in a garden, or leprechauns or telekinesis - he's still an atheist. Atheists TEND NOT to believe in the supernatural - but I know atheists who do. They are still atheists.

You're not clear here. Are you saying only that you disagree with the implication that atheism IS a self-centered philosophy? Or are you also saying -- somehow(!) -- that you disagree with the actual facts behind Brhaspati? (....which would seem to be illogical; how does one disagree with a fact?)

I disagree with any assertion that atheism is a philosophy of any kind, self-centered or otherwise. I don't venture any opinion regarding Brhaspati. It is irrelevant to the issue of whether atheism is a philosophy (which it isn't).

And yet in their believing in perfected beings who have survived mortality, they are clearly believers in the supernatural. No atheist, by definition, believes in the supernatural.

Incorrect. Atheism means - not believing in gods. If an atheist believes in supernatural things like fairies in a garden, or leprechauns or telekinesis - he's still an atheist. Atheists TEND NOT to believe in the supernatural - but I know atheists who do. They are still atheists.

whatever/Whoever has been associated with "atheistic philosophy" in the past must be addressed first.

Actually not. A religion can be atheistic or theistic. A philosophy can be atheistic or theistic. But atheism is not a philosophy. Just because some philosophies are atheistic does not mean that atheism necessitates certain philosophical beliefs or that atheism is itself a philosophy. It isn't.

And, nobody posited the question as "if atheism is a philosophy..." Kevin asked the question "If atheism is NOT a philosophy, how can we know anything about it. In the OP, Kevin called it a philosophy or a "philosophical standpoint." I responded that it wasn't a philosophy - he called me long-winded and I rephrased it in a shorter post, and then he say something to the effect of "o.k., if atheism is NOT a philosophy..." (which it isn't). I also asked what the main points of the alleged philosophy of atheism were, and that's where you came in.

So when you say

"IF there is such a thing as atheistic philosophy, what would be its components?". Now, if you want to suddenly take back that question now that it seems to lead into all sorts of illogicalities for you, some of which you may well have anticipated but not all(?), be my guest.

Take back? I never asked that question in the first place, so it's not for me to take back. I asked "Let me address it by asking you a question: What do you think are the main points of the "philosophy of atheism?" Kevin said that it was a philosophy - I asked him what that philosophy entailed. No answer has been forthcoming besides your discussion of the philosophies held by some atheists.

historically, there is this one Brhaspati-an ethic that is a part -- and, surprisingly, a recurring part -- of atheism _history_, even if not necessarily part and parcel of atheism's _essence_. We need not draw any very large conclusions from its playing a part in atheism _history_. But it's illogical to ignore it. It's still part of the record <shrug>.

It is part of atheism's history only insofar as an atheist held that ethical view. That doesn't make it "the philosophy of atheism." The philosophies of other atheists are also part of that same history, and just because this Brhaspati is the oldest that you know of doesn't mean it ranks higher as a principle or set of principles inherent in atheism. There is no philosophy of atheism. Atheism is not a philosophy. It's just a lack of belief in gods. That's all. All else is incidental.

Intrinsically, it may not be a real philosophy -- we're arguing topic A again, rather than topic B (see above). But to say history doesn't matter at all is just wrong. History may not necessarily have a direct bearing on atheism's essence. But since it does have some bearing on any attempt (theoretical/hypothetical or not) to codify an "alleged atheistic philosophy", as you put it, it does still matter in this codifying context, to a degree. It is therefore not irrelevant, until one disallows topic B altogether and concentrates only on topic A. You didn't do that at first. But now you are.

It isn't a philosophy, real, fake, intrinsic, or extrinsic. Period. There are no philosophical principles of atheism.

Topic B never existed - see above - other than you bringing it up. Kevin alleged atheism was a philosophy. I denied it, and asked him to tell me what the main points of the alleged philosophy were. That's all argument A. No argument B.

I did not say history doesn't matter at all - I said the philosophical beliefs of some alleged pioneer atheists is irrelevant to the issue of whether atheism is a philosophy.

The history codifying atheism as a philosophy angle you've raised only makes any sense if any of the philosophies held by those pioneering atheists you listed are shown to be required to be an atheist or inherent in atheism or to follow necessarily from someone adopting atheism. There is no philosophy, however, that is required to be an atheist, inherent in atheism, or that follows necessarily from atheism. None. The pioneering atheists you listed did not espouse philosophies that were required to be an atheist, inerent in atheism or that followed necessarily from atheism.

If a person held the philosophies espoused by any of your pioneers, but believed in a god or gods, that person would be a theist. If a person rejected all those philosophies, but lacked a belief in gods, then that person would be an atheist. So, whither the philosophy of atheism?

[Atheist-Lite]

Atheism is a stance but it is a stance that leaves a 'vacuum of ideas' or you could say religon gives you ideas to play with, even if their wrong. That 'vacuum of ideas' invites a philisophical approach beyond atheism of one kind or another. So? I've changed my position marginally. That's what atheists do and theists do not. I'm humble enough to reflect and change my position.

[Coito ergo sum]

Atheism is a stance but it is a stance that leaves a 'vacuum of ideas' or you could say religon gives you ideas to play with, even if their wrong. That 'vacuum of ideas' invites a philisophical approach beyond atheism of one kind or another. So? I've changed my position marginally. That's what atheists do and theists do not. I'm humble enough to reflect and change my position.

Atheism doesn't pretend to provide philosophical ideas. People are supposed to use their little grey cells between their ears to puzzle out philosophies, morals, values, ethics, etc. Theism, as you say, fills that area of human thought with wrong ideas, or if ideas are right it's by coincidence.

[Stein]

I said the philosophical beliefs of some alleged pioneer atheists is irrelevant to the issue of whether atheism is a philosophy.

And there I still have to disagree. Once we decide to address the issue at all -- "the issue of whether atheism is a philosophy" -- we do have to address the history of the atheist pioneers. That's simply unavoidable. The philosophies of the pioneers have to be a starting point in any inquiry as to whether there is such a thing as an "atheistic philosophy" at all. Maybe one could make a very good argument that there isn't such a thing. Fine. I'm not saying you can't make such an argument and make it effectively. But I am saying that it's silly to think that an issue like that can be addressed comprehensively in the absence of looking seriously at the thinking of those pioneers who first broke the theist mold of their societies in the first place! That's just common sense. Look, maybe, such historical scrutiny might actually help in discounting the notion of viewing atheism as a philosophy. Any conclusion that atheism is a philosophy might or not be borne out by what we see in history. Fine. But the philosophies of those pioneers are still relevant to the issue, one way or the other. On this, you and I are going to have to agree to disagree.

Stein

[Loki]

Are you suggesting atheism simply did not exist before some particular bronze ager thought it up as an extension of theist philosophy, and that all atheism since that event is directly related to it? How bizarre.

[Stein]

Are you suggesting atheism simply did not exist before some particular bronze ager thought it up as an extension of theist philosophy, and that all atheism since that event is directly related to it? How bizarre.

Of course not. We're looking at those examples of atheism that are deliberate push-back against theism. Such examples as have survived go back to ancient India in the 7th century b.c. That's right: the pioneers who deliberately push back against theism go back that far. Now, each pioneer is a pioneer in their own particular culture/time, of course. Rarely do later pioneers within some other culture that's still oblivious of the atheist alternative up and borrow from some previous pioneer from elsewhere. Instead, they generate their own arguments against theism, contingent strictly on the specific brand of theism that prevails in THEIR culture, and so on.

The kind of atheism that we're focusing on here is the type that arises as push-back against some prevailing brand of theism. In addition, that kind of push-back sort of atheism has a paper trail due to its having flouted specific known brandS of theism in the first place. The earliest push-back of this sort that's extant is in 7th-century-b.c.-India.

There may or may not have been deliberate self-conscious articulators of the atheist position that have not survived. There may or may not have been deliberate self-conscious articulators of the atheist position who arose without theism being first a trigger. But theism is odd enough as an idea to make it likely that atheism was not even conceived as a point of view until theism had already appeared (why develop a position that Santa Claus does not exist until someone first suggests that he _does_ exist?). Certainly, the only sorts of atheism that survive in the written record are all deliberate push-back against various brands of theism. Hinduism is one of the earliest surviving theist brands, and sure enough, the earliest extant example of atheist push-back is aimed at Hinduism and dates from the 7th century b.c. So that is the earliest atheist "philosopher" that I deal with. At the same time, a number of later pioneering atheists are just as pioneering in their own culture(s) without even referencing the earlier pioneers and thus equally important in any historic survey that tries to grapple with ALL the pioneers who attempt to introduce atheism to their respective cultures, ancient and modern.

Stein

[Loki]

Fairy nuff.
Now what does altruism have to do with theism? or atheism for that matter?
I'm afraid I will also disagree that "there is no evidence for the existence of gods" implies any sort of philosophical stand beyond that of accepting there is no evidence to support the existence of gods.